Veterans Running Up The Deficit

[MoltenRock III]

Retired Senator (Republican) Alan Simpson who is serving on President Obama's "deficit reduction committee", got into trouble last week by saying Americans who expect Social Security payments after a lifetime of paying into the system was problematic for the deficit because, "Social Security is a milk cow with 310 million tits".

As if this wasn't a disgusting enough sentiment, that a program should pay what it promised, this week he showed Republican true colors again, by blaming Vets who are on disability payments for exacerbating the deficit. He said, "The irony is that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess...".

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...it_co_chair/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news

Now, keep in mind increasing taxes to pay for the deficit is nearly a non-starter for Alan Simpson. No, he blames people who are working for a living, while saying "there's no money, it's gone and playing the blame game isn't going to help". Well why not? Why won't it help? Where did the fucking money go Alan? It went to wars that weren't paid for! It went to massive tax cuts to the wealthy that weren't paid for! It went to military contractors to buy weapon systems that weren't paid for! And now the Chickenhawk Republicans who dodged the draft to Vietnam nearly one and all, want to fuck those guys that went and did their duty one last time, because they "aren't helping" the deficit?

Go fuck yourself Alan, you dirtball!

 

[laikaNYC]

You actually had an interesting thread here until you turned it into yet another partisan smear piece.

 

[JB3]

What a BS thread.

Did you even read the article? There is BIPARTISAN support for reevaluating this spending, because they're not sure its necessary. The spending that Simpson criticized was so called presumptive conditions spending, which presumes that conditions that vets have developed were a result of their service. Specifically they mention a high number of vets diagnosed with diabetes receiving funds based on their exposure to agent orange, even though there is no link whatsoever that agent orange is responsible.

It is not unreasonable to question billions of dollars in spending when they're using a formula that ASSUMES that veterans' illnesses are a result of their service, when the links are dubious.

What a crock this thread is.

 

[MoltenRock III]

What a BS thread.

What a crock this thread is.

Not at all. It goes to the mentality of Alan Simpson, and Republicans. They blame a handful of veterans that they aren't helping? Give me a friggin break.

They seek to blame Social Security which should have had $2.5 TRILLION in reserves that Alan Simpson himself blew that a crack whore, that won the lottery. He and his cohorts blew it on wars and a bloated Pentagon!

Why doesn't he blame those items? The USA, and baby boomers knew that this money wasn't supposed to be spent but they spent it anyway, and now they want to gut the program for gen X and gen Y? We ain't the problem!

What about suburbanites gorging themselves on subsidies to live their lifestyle, with unfunded roads, transportation, and infrastructure being charged on the credit card all the while slashing taxes so they didn't have to pay their fair share. Where's Alan Simpson's outrage and finger pointing at those people?

 

[JB3]

Not at all. It goes to the mentality of Alan Simpson, and Republicans. They blame a handful of veterans that they aren't helping? Give me a friggin break.

The fact that you're ignoring that one of the most prominent veterans in Congress approves of these questions being asked discounts the rest of your bullshit temper-tantrum. (and the leading republican on that committee has not suggested any such thing.) This is what the article that you supposedly read said:

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat and Vietnam combat veteran, has also raised questions about the spending. The leading Republican on the committee, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, has not responded to several requests for comment on the topic in recent months.

Or the democrat that chairs the VA committee:

Sen. Daniel Akaka, a Hawaii Democrat who currently chairs the VA committee, said Tuesday he will address the broader issue of so-called presumptive conditions at a hearing previously set for Sept. 23. The committee will look to "see what changes Congress and VA may need to make to existing law and policy," Akaka said in an e-mail.

"It is our solemn responsibility to help veterans with disabilities suffered in their service to our country," said Akaka, who served in the Army Corps of Engineers during World War II. "That responsibility also requires us to make sure limited resources are available for those who truly need and are entitled to them."

But hey, don't let THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED get in the way of your need to drive a partisan wedge into every issue you see.

They seek to blame Social Security which should have had $2.5 TRILLION in reserves that Alan Simpson himself blew that a crack whore, that won the lottery. He and his cohorts blew it on wars and a bloated Pentagon!

Why doesn't he blame those items? The USA, and baby boomers knew that this money wasn't supposed to be spent but they spent it anyway, and now they want to gut the program for gen X and gen Y? We ain't the problem!

You're joking right? Do you have any comprehension of how the trust fund works? Judging by this ^ I doubt it.

What about suburbanites gorging themselves on subsidies to live their lifestyle, with unfunded roads, transportation, and infrastructure being charged on the credit card all the while slashing taxes so they didn't have to pay their fair share. Where's Alan Simpson's outrage and finger pointing at those people?

What a bunch of horseshit. I wouldn't have expected anything less from you than to bring up a completely unrelated issue (and one that you seem to have a long-standing irrational grudge about) into this discussion.


READ YOUR OWN FUCKING ARTICLE! It does NOT support the assertion you're making!

 

[MoltenRock III]

WARS ARE EXPENSIVE. Either your veterans come home and you don't help them, causing them to become human wrecks and costing millions, or you do help them, costing millions and inevitably not saving all of them from becoming human wrecks.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHEAP WAR! If you start one, you better make damn sure its worth the cost.

Yup! And both active soldiers and veterans should get every damn dime they have coming to them. Yet under the Bushies, while they waved the flag and talked the talk they cut veteran's benefits. So many Republicans, where it's nearly all of them, are nothing more than Chickenhawks, whereby they talk a big game, but when their nuts would have been on the line, they dodged the draft. Damn near every one!

Here's the list: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/chickenhawks.html

 

[White Eagle]

Let me see if I can help you guys out.
I am a Viet Nam Veteran. The last two years of my service was the first two years of the US involvement in Viet Nam.
The only medical services I am not eligible for is hearing, visual and dental. All my medical has been paid for by the VA. Now that I have Medicare the VA goes to them and what they do not cover, the VA does.
Now, my service the last two years was in Hawaii. Yes, I spent 2 years at a Naval Communications Station in Hawaii. The only way I might have been exposed to Agent Orange is if I tricked with a military person that just came back from Nam and I did trick. Hawaii was the special Rest & Recreation spot for all the military services.
Let's see what any of you have to say about my Veterans medical treatments and if I am entitled to them.

 

[rareboy]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHEAP WAR! If you start one, you better make damn sure its worth the cost.

Up here in Canuckistan we've actually had conservatives note that it is fiscally desirable that soldiers are killed rather than injured because of the lifetime costs associated with the latter.

OTTAWA – Col. Pat Stogran, a retired infantry officer, has spent the last three years advocating better treatment for Canada’s wounded veterans.

But the federal ombudsman only realized the enormity of the battle he was fighting after a recent conversation with a civil servant who watches over the government’s purse.

“I was told … that it is in the government’s best interests to have soldiers killed overseas rather than wounded because the liability is shorter term,” Stogran said.

For the former Canadian commander in Afghanistan, it was a revealing answer to a stunning problem. The government’s treatment of soldiers and Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who have sacrificed their limbs, mental health and lives for the country was a question of dollars and cents.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...e,+ombudsman+charges&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

I have to think it is one of the reasons that Rumsfeld loved the idea of letting contractors run a war; less responsibility to the people who get injured or die.

 

[jackoroe]

Let me see if I can help you guys out.
I am a Viet Nam Veteran. The last two years of my service was the first two years of the US involvement in Viet Nam.
The only medical services I am not eligible for is hearing, visual and dental. All my medical has been paid for by the VA. Now that I have Medicare the VA goes to them and what they do not cover, the VA does.
Now, my service the last two years was in Hawaii. Yes, I spent 2 years at a Naval Communications Station in Hawaii. The only way I might have been exposed to Agent Orange is if I tricked with a military person that just came back from Nam and I did trick. Hawaii was the special Rest & Recreation spot for all the military services.
Let's see what any of you have to say about my Veterans medical treatments and if I am entitled to them.

First, let me thank you for your service, White Eagle. I think we should do as much as we can to help our veterans when they suffer a wound as a result of combat. But let me ask you. Would you consider it a service related disability to suffer from erectile dysfunction once your over 50? If you develop a heart problem later in life, as many of us will, should that be considered a disability if it isn't service related, but simply old age?

We certainly need to be generous with those that wear the uniform of this country, especially in time of war. But we seem to be using the VA benefits to do things it wasn't intended to do. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Let me see if I can help you guys out.
I am a Viet Nam Veteran. The last two years of my service was the first two years of the US involvement in Viet Nam.
The only medical services I am not eligible for is hearing, visual and dental. All my medical has been paid for by the VA. Now that I have Medicare the VA goes to them and what they do not cover, the VA does.
Now, my service the last two years was in Hawaii. Yes, I spent 2 years at a Naval Communications Station in Hawaii. The only way I might have been exposed to Agent Orange is if I tricked with a military person that just came back from Nam and I did trick. Hawaii was the special Rest & Recreation spot for all the military services.
Let's see what any of you have to say about my Veterans medical treatments and if I am entitled to them.

I see what you are saying and its merit.
Not to diminish your service nor knowing your career prior to time you are talking about but if I understand it right wouldn't the start of your thread be better served if you had stated "I am a Viet Nam Era Veteran"?

 

[JB3]

WARS ARE EXPENSIVE. Either your veterans come home and you don't help them, causing them to become human wrecks and costing millions, or you do help them, costing millions and inevitably not saving all of them from becoming human wrecks.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHEAP WAR! If you start one, you better make damn sure its worth the cost.

Except that isn't what this is about. No one's denying that vets should receive care if their ailments or disabilities are a result of their service.

What's being discussed here, and what Molten has yet to grasp, is that there are ailments that are being paid for by taxpayers that have nothing to do with the service of these vets. There is support from both sides of the aisle, and from a vietnam vet that is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and general government treatment of vets, to reform wasteful coverage of ailments that should not be covered.

 

[White Eagle]

I see what you are saying and its merit.
Not to diminish your service nor knowing your career prior to time you are talking about but if I understand it right wouldn't the start of your thread be better served if you had stated "I am a Viet Nam Era Veteran"?

Not at all. I am a Viet Nam Vet. Anyone serving during the conflict is considered that.

 

[White Eagle]

First, let me thank you for your service, White Eagle. I think we should do as much as we can to help our veterans when they suffer a wound as a result of combat. But let me ask you. Would you consider it a service related disability to suffer from erectile dysfunction once your over 50? If you develop a heart problem later in life, as many of us will, should that be considered a disability if it isn't service related, but simply old age?

We certainly need to be generous with those that wear the uniform of this country, especially in time of war. But we seem to be using the VA benefits to do things it wasn't intended to do. Wouldn't you agree?

Thanks for the recognition.
ED and heart problems and anything else aren't service connected unless they happened while in or after service if something happened while in. ? Just talking for Viet Nam Vets, anything that comes up after service will be treated. The only things I find not eligible for are vision, dental and hearing. All the medical problems I have are being treated at no cost to me. I understand it was my service in Nam an entitlement and, no, I did not go to Nam. My service at the Communication station was directly connected to Nam by the communications involved. But, anyone's service at a desk in San Diego is still a Nam Vet.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Let me see if I can help you guys out.
I am a Viet Nam Veteran. The last two years of my service was the first two years of the US involvement in Viet Nam.
The only medical services I am not eligible for is hearing, visual and dental. All my medical has been paid for by the VA. Now that I have Medicare the VA goes to them and what they do not cover, the VA does.
Now, my service the last two years was in Hawaii. Yes, I spent 2 years at a Naval Communications Station in Hawaii. The only way I might have been exposed to Agent Orange is if I tricked with a military person that just came back from Nam and I did trick. Hawaii was the special Rest & Recreation spot for all the military services.
Let's see what any of you have to say about my Veterans medical treatments and if I am entitled to them.

You went to fight for the USA, and you deserve every penny, every nickel, every dime, and then some of which you are entitled to.

It made me sick to my stomach when the Bushies would wrap themselves in the US flag and talk about patriotism, honor, bravery, and all that bullshit.... all the while they were draft dodgers themselves of the Vietnam war, and cutting veterans budgets and programs. They are the epitome of pond scum.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17117430/

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

 

[White Eagle]

Except that isn't what this is about. No one's denying that vets should receive care if their ailments or disabilities are a result of their service.

What's being discussed here, and what Molten has yet to grasp, is that there are ailments that are being paid for by taxpayers that have nothing to do with the service of these vets. There is support from both sides of the aisle, and from a vietnam vet that is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and general government treatment of vets, to reform wasteful coverage of ailments that should not be covered.

You are stuck on "as a result of their service". Treatment of ailments after their service are being treated. As far as I know, any ailment after service is covered for the Viet Nam Vet, for me anyway. I certainly am not a special case.

 

[MoltenRock III]

You are stuck on "as a result of their service". Treatment of ailments after their service are being treated. As far as I know, any ailment after service is covered for the Viet Nam Vet, for me anyway. I certainly am not a special case.

I don't think he understands the difference between someone who was in the military for 25 years and then retired and used the medical treatment options open to him, vs. the war veteran survivors that may have only served 2 or 3 years yet are entitled to the same medical benefits as a lifelong solider, vs. a soldier that was in the military during peacetime, never saw combat, and was in and out in 3 or 4 years.

 

[White Eagle]

I don't think he understands the difference between someone who was in the military for 25 years and then retired and used the medical treatment options open to him, vs. the war veteran survivors that may have only served 2 or 3 years yet are entitled to the same medical benefits as a lifelong solider, vs. a soldier that was in the military during peacetime, never saw combat, and was in and out in 3 or 4 years.

Thank you. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[archive]

Except that isn't what this is about. No one's denying that vets should receive care if their ailments or disabilities are a result of their service.

What's being discussed here, and what Molten has yet to grasp, is that there are ailments that are being paid for by taxpayers that have nothing to do with the service of these vets. There is support from both sides of the aisle, and from a vietnam vet that is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and general government treatment of vets, to reform wasteful coverage of ailments that should not be covered.

thats funny all in itself....could u imagine if the va had to pay for actual ailments/disabilities/etc when they happened instead of 5o years down the road when mostly everyones all dead

 

[archive]

does wearing a uniform mean you should be forever immune and shielded from any and all fiscal realities?

whered did that come from?

 

[archive]

reading this thread, it seemed like people were suggesting that if someone who wore a uniform says jump, we should ask how high and damn any consequences.

i can see where that sentiment comes from....but i also feel the typical americn doesnt understand the military .....besides the usual generic" im a patriotic american because i support the military"